It's possible that the DNA could be wrong, or that the reenactment models could be off, but in the absence of
any actual eyewitness (and even that testimony is not as reliable as once assumed) testimony to an event it is the best we have to go on, right?
You do know that not one chapter in The Babble is
an actual eyewitness account don't you?
Actual eyewitness accounts have the eyewitnesses available for cross examination.
I prefer to take as more reliable
the actual eyewitnesses to the life and ministry of Jesus, those who saw Him with their eyes, heard Him with their ears, and touched Him with their hands.
AND the eyewitness accounts are all people recounting stories they heard from other people... NOT
the actual eyewitnesses, which make it even less reliable.
Not exact matches
The tomb where the disciples had laid the Lord's body found empty, along with the reports of His appearances after His burial, especially at His ascension, are
eyewitness accounts and
actual evidence for His resurrection given by His devout followers.
Although the relation between two such
actual occasions might help to explain how
eyewitnesses in Jesus» lifetime might have been able to relate to the quality of life embodied by him, it does not explain how we in our era are to bridge all of what has come to separate us from him.
More importantly, though, Spielberg consulted with
actual Schindler's survivors to get their
eyewitness accounts of what happened.
Like the increasingly influential «citizen journalists» who inspired him, he mixes
actual news footage, found
eyewitness video clips, and reenacted found footage with his own fictional narratives.
The reason is that there isn't any credible evidence for them, outside of stories that are obviously mythopoeic works, not
actual histories or reliable
eyewitness accounts.
When dealing with interview notes, transcripts, and statements, it may also be necessary to identify if not the
actual subject, at least the category of subject (e.g.
eyewitnesses, home - care worker, etc.) involved.